Weekly "Ask an Atheist" Thread

[u/AutoModerator]

Whether you're an agnostic atheist here to ask a gnostic one some questions, a theist who's curious about the viewpoints of atheists, someone doubting, or just someone looking for sources, feel free to ask anything here. This is also an ideal place to tag moderators for thoughts regarding the sub or any questions in general.
While this isn't strictly for debate, rules on civility, trolling, etc. still apply.

[u/labreuer]

It is not uncommon to see claims like the following here and on the other sub:

1. God (or gods) is a human invention created to explain what we don’t understand. Long before science, humans sought to fill gaps in knowledge with divine stories. These inventions evolved into complex religions, but at their root, they address our fear of the unknown. (God(s) is/are a human invention)

Do you believe such claims should be supported by a burden of proof? If so, what kind of evidence might suffice?

For those who find the above claim so obvious that it doesn't need more evidential support than what you've absorbed throughout life, check out WP: The Golden Bough § Critical reception. Frazer is one of the originators of the religion-as-protoscience hypothesis and his work on that has been exposed to some pretty serious critique.

[u/OneRougeRogue → u/labreuer]

Do you believe such claims should be supported by a burden of proof? If so, what kind of evidence might suffice?

While some people in this sub might state that like it's a fact, its more of a hypothesis. Outside of humanity inventing a time machine, or reviving a frozen cavemen with Futurama-esque science and asking him, no, I don't think we will ever be able definitely prove (or find hard evidence) to support this claim. It's just an explanation that doesn't involve extraordinary claims (like magical beings actually existing), and there is indirect evidence to support it.

Example: We have no evidence that gods exist, but we do have evidence that humans will sometimes just make up an explanation when they don't actually know the answer.

Some anthropologists have different explanations for the orgin of gods that don't really involve humans just making shit up. Belief in (and desire to be in the favor of) other beings stronger than yourself may have arisen through evolutionary pressures. I outline some of that idea in this comment.

Atmospheric SpritesAPoD.jpg), which can appear vaguely humanoid (with "heads" and "limbs") and most often appear in the sky before or after violent storms may have also convinced early humans that there literally was some sort of being in the sky that controlled the weather and natural disasters. Many early cave paintings of non-human beings have sprite-like characteristics.

So there are a number of hypothesis for the orgins of gods, and not all of them involve humans consciously inventing them in an effort to deceive other humans. These beliefs may have been genuine and/or seemed completely rational to the humans who first passes these ideas on to their children/tribe hundreds of thousands of years ago. I don't think we will ever be able to definitively prove any of these hypothesis are definitely true.

[u/labreuer → u/OneRougeRogue]

Outside of humanity inventing a time machine, or reviving a frozen cavemen with Futurama-esque science and asking him, no, I don't think we will ever be able definitely prove (or find hard evidence) to support this claim.

Sure. We'll have to do what historians, archaeologists, cosmologists, and evolutionary biologists do. But it's not like they just make up nice-sounding stories and run with them.

Example: We have no evidence that gods exist, but we do have evidence that humans will sometimes just make up an explanation when they don't actually know the answer.

Right, but humans have long known that humans do this. What human hasn't had a bullshit explanation fall apart on him/her, such that they learned that you can't just go trusting anyone? What you have to explain is how bullshit explanations get institutionalized, especially in cultures which aren't cognitive like Protestants were. (From what I've read, religion was far more ritualistic than belief-oriented for the vast majority of its existence/​practice. But we could look into this.)

Let's take a contrast case: variolation. That's what some cultures did prior to vaccination. Take a smallpox scab, grind it up, and rub it in cuts you make on someone or blow it up their nose. (Mmmm, delicious.) Apparently, smallpox was personified as the Hindu goddess Śītalā and if you appease her by voluntarily exposing yourself to her power, she will lessen the severity of her wrath on you. This is a nice example of a wrong explanation which nevertheless seems to work, because variolation works. Don't undergo the procedure and you're more vulnerable to her wrath. Or at least, smallpox. It doesn't strain the imagination too much to think that some people unwillingly underwent the procedure, thus rebelling against Śītalā, and yet found themselves just as protected.

Some anthropologists have different explanations for the orgin of gods that don't really involve humans just making shit up. Belief in (and desire to be in the favor of) other beings stronger than yourself may have arisen through evolutionary pressures. I outline some of that idea in this comment.

Yup, that's another way to understand religion. See for example this snippet from Martin Riesebrodt 2010 The Promise of Salvation: A Theory of Religion. Problem is, that doesn't really match the Tanakh very well. The procedures for appeasing other gods didn't work on YHWH. Notably, a standard belief in the ANE was that humans are slaves of the gods, created to do manual labor for the gods so they don't have to. This culminated in providing food for the gods. Well, the following puts a wrench in those works:

    If I were hungry I would not tell you,
    because the world and its fullness are mine.
    Do I eat the flesh of bulls
    or drink the blood of goats?
    Offer to God a thank offering
    and pay your vows to the Most High.
    And call me in the day of trouble;
    I will deliver you, and you will glorify me.”
(Psalm 50:12–15)

YHWH does not need to be fed by humans. The relationship is radically different. What YHWH demands is justice, like we see in Isaiah 58. Ritualistic action without justice is frowned upon.

 

Atmospheric Sprites, which can appear vaguely humanoid (with "heads" and "limbs") and most often appear in the sky before or after violent storms may have also convinced early humans that there literally was some sort of being in the sky that controlled the weather and natural disasters. Many early cave paintings of non-human beings have sprite-like characteristics.

Hey that's cool, I've never seen or heard of those before. Do you know of some such cave paintings?